Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Resignation from the Intercept

greenwald.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#691

Post by brian_cloutier »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #434
lordnacho wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the Economist, FT and the WSJ still have a somewhat positive reputation. They're expensive and tend to write about things that are important, not sensational. All other publications are slowly falling victim to the parametdynamicser of the entertainment game, including ones that were also in that bracket not long ago. Mind you I'm not saying WaPo and NYT are trash now, they did start with a high rep and t…

The Economist is quickly losing that reputation. I cancelled my subscription. The FT is still pretty good, though they shy away from anything critical of powerful corporations/individuals.

What about the economist made you cancel? My impression is that they're still doing a great job of providing trustworthy news which avoids sensationalism

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#692

Post by jMyles »

captain_price7 wrote: post #594
fatbird wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about reading the email exchange with the editors where they provide feedback?

Peter maas' arguments seemed quite reasonable, but then so did the counter arguments of Glenn. Hard to take sides. But that response from another editor Betsy was garbage- she threw around words like "offensive" and "unacceptable" and didn't even bother to explain her position.

> Peter maas' arguments seemed quite reasonable

Reasonable, yes. But sufficient to warrant the sweeping changes for which he asks?

His best (and, to my reading, only very solid) point is that Greenwald's article didn't make plain that the full archive is apparently only possessed by two media outlets, who have (in an act of their own tendency to act against the public interest, to be sure) not yet provided it elsewhere.

His assertion that the other media who have juggled these questions have done so with dispassion and exhaustion ("doesn’t explore how major news organizations have done significant stories, and those stories, such as the Journal’s, have not found anything of significance. The Times has also reported on the China deal and found the claims wanting. There are other pieces I can point to...") is a view with glasses so rose-colored as to be a political fiction in 2020 America.

Moreover, Greenwald's response is substantially more sophisticated and convincing.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#693

Post by untog »

marcusverus wrote: post #411
ggggtez wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the kind of story that can break someone's journalistic career. Even Fox News wouldn't run the story because it wasn't supported by facts. And last I heard, there still has been no concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Tucker Carlson claims that his evidence "got lost in the mail". In the age of the internet, they didn't snap any photos of this so-called proof? There is no "there" there. Just a bunch of internet…

Glenn Greenwald is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist. He broke the Snowden story--another sensational-sounding scoop which likely sounded like total bullshit at first. Is it possible that Mr. Greenwald is a better judge of whether or not there is a story here?

The Pulitzer focus on the individual journalist has a lot to answer for sometimes. The amazing stories Greenwald wrote were all edited by an editor that helped refine, focus and potentially correct mistakes.

Would he win a Pulitzer for a piece he wrote entirely by himself? We don’t know. But the emails he released today show him objecting to exactly this process. The editor gave him a number of suggested improvements and clarifications, and he balked.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#694

Post by michaelmrose »

mikestew wrote: post #571

Now that WSJ is included in Apple News+, the NYT has a month after the election to clean their shit up, or I dump a decade-long subscription. And by "clean their shit up", I want news on my front page, not political discussion. And by news I mean "Hurricane FooBar Hits FL Coast", not "Hurricane FooBar Hits FL Coast While Trump Plays Golf". Though I shall stay far, far away from that crazy train WSJ calls an "opinion…

Ultimately hurricane foobar hits FL coast is usually of purely regional interest whereas in the current context we are in the midst of an election that will be the most significant issue this decade.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#695

Post by rdm70 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #434
lordnacho wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the Economist, FT and the WSJ still have a somewhat positive reputation. They're expensive and tend to write about things that are important, not sensational. All other publications are slowly falling victim to the parametdynamicser of the entertainment game, including ones that were also in that bracket not long ago. Mind you I'm not saying WaPo and NYT are trash now, they did start with a high rep and t…

The Economist is quickly losing that reputation. I cancelled my subscription. The FT is still pretty good, though they shy away from anything critical of powerful corporations/individuals.

Wrong. Wirecard.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#696

Post by fredguth »

ggggtez wrote: post #346
blhack wrote: post #27

Glenn had a 3 hour long conversation on a podcast a few days ago where he laid out the problem really well: Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat, because the people they are friends with are the ones that own that boat, invite them to parties, and are a part of their friend groups. The reporting around this story has been absolutely unbelievable t…

It's also the kind of story that can break someone's journalistic career. Even Fox News wouldn't run the story because it wasn't supported by facts. And last I heard, there still has been no concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Tucker Carlson claims that his evidence "got lost in the mail". In the age of the internet, they didn't snap any photos of this so-called proof? There is no "there" there. Just a bunch of internet…

If you read Greenwald’s piece, you will understand why he disagrees with you. I, personally, credit his ethics more than I credit TheIntercept’s editor and this is why I immediately subscribed his substack.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#697

Post by rmrfstar »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #691
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist is quickly losing that reputation. I cancelled my subscription. The FT is still pretty good, though they shy away from anything critical of powerful corporations/individuals.

What about the economist made you cancel? My impression is that they're still doing a great job of providing trustworthy news which avoids sensationalism

When I read the Economist, I can't help but feel like I'm reading an advertisement for the center of the Anglo-American neoliberal Overton window, drafted by some recent grad who doesn't know who Allen Dulles was.

To rip off a pg-ism, they are intentional moderates. Intentional moderates are boring.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#698

Post by fredguth »

pvarangot wrote: post #626
agentdrtran wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Journalists have essentially become socialites. They don't want to publish articles that will rock the boat," There have been a virtually uncountable number of high-profile investigative pieces that criticise people in power published in the last 6 months! This argument is nonsense.

Yeah, and they are published either by socialites from a group that hates the group being exposed, or by "freaks" like Greenwald that no one with a public persona wants near them because they know he's a time bomb.

Long live the freaks of the world. We need them more than ever.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#699

Post by fredguth »

CogentHedgehog wrote: post #64

Keep in mind we're just seeing Greenwald's side of this. It sure sounds like he's trying to paint it a way that makes him look good and the Intercept look bad. Lots of claims of "censorship" etc. I want to hear their side of it as well. My guess is that there's a lot more to this story. My guess is if all his peers thought the claims were not solid enough to publish, there is probably a reason for that -- not simply…

I don’t believe you have read even Greenwald’s side. If you read, you will understand his opinion even if you disagree with it.

Re: My Resignation from the Intercept

#700

Post by fredguth »

marrone12 wrote: post #600
eric_b wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She attacks him personally without ever refuting any of his points. She hand waves that they will correct the record "in time." Her response is riddled with sensationalist language. I'm gonna go with Greenwald's version of events on this one. This person seems fully compromised.

A friend of mine works at the Intercept and has said that Glenn has been going off the rails for the past half a year and has alienated the entire staff at the Intercept, not just this specific editor. Apparently he's been planning to leave for a while, and from my friend's POV, this is Glenn's way of making himself the martyr and getting good publicity for himself and his patreon.

Well. If so, they made it easy for him. TheIntercept is over. People seem to forget who Greenwald is and why he co-founded TheIntercept. He has more credibility than all these editors combined. Good luck for them.
Post reply on HN